The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the moving of the defendant with the shopping car, but the court below convicted the defendant although there is no difference between the victim and the shopping car, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below, based on the evidence duly admitted by the court below, states that the victim suffered an injury after receiving an emergency treatment from a nearby hospital after the accident of this case, i.e., the victim was faced with and stated a consistent and specific damage in the defendant's carart while moving from 2 to 3 occasions in the investigation agency and the court of the court below. Such victim's statement is trying to be calculated at 3 times in the calculation unit, and the victim's statement is consistent with the statement that the victim had a witness of the accident of this case, followed the voice of the victim in the court of the court below, followed the victim's non-defluence, and the defendant who received the victim's claim was dead. The victim stated that the victim suffered an injury after receiving an emergency treatment after finding a nearby hospital after the accident of this case, and the victim suffered an injury due to the kartian with regard to the circumstance of the accident of this case, considering the circumstances that the contents of the injury or diagnosis statement also conform to the above accident, it is reasonable to deem that the victim suffered an injury by negligence.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.